Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: the searched fields and the fact that results are returned newest-first, which tells the agent how to interpret ordering.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded, followed by a compact English gloss. The bilingual restatement is mild duplication but is short and clearly intentional for accessibility, so it does not bloat the definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter search with full annotation coverage, the description supplies the key missing pieces: what is searched, how results are ordered, and the language tip. The only residual gap is that, with no output schema, the shape of a returned 'story' object is never hinted at.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (both params documented with examples and min/max), so the baseline would be 3. The description goes further by advising Portuguese-language terms, which meaningfully shapes how the required query parameter should be populated — something the schema does not state.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (search news stories) and even enumerates which fields are matched (título, resumo, tópicos e ativos) plus the ordering of results (most recent matches). It implicitly separates itself from ultimas_historias by requiring a keyword term, but it never names a sibling tool explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The line 'Portuguese terms work best' is a useful operational hint about how to phrase the query, and the 'by keyword' framing implies the use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over ultimas_historias (browse latest) or get_historia (fetch one story).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.